They don't think we know that they know the other they is trying to deceive and confuse us. And them. See you can't just think of it in terms of us and them; there are dicks, pussies, and assholes. Or maybe there are pigs, dogs, and sheep, and maybe sheepdogs and wolves, and maybe nearsighted and destructive moles, noisy but useless roosters, and industrious but narrow-minded beavers. And we can't forget all the moronic lemmings.

Of course! And then you have to factor in those among them that are us, and those among us that are actually them!

You're right. I keep trying to tell them that we are us, and the the real they are coming to get us, but they don't listen.

Come on! Why do you think I will go into the US to get you! No way, I am not like you!

But I will get you if you are coming into my country to make the same shit you are making in other countries all around the world. All women and men here will be firing on you if you come here to get us. Switzerland, like most other countries, is not like the US and a few other criminal countries like France or England that make war all around the world, transforming independent countries into rubbish, condemning their citizens to suffer worst life conditions than in the stone age._________________[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

But I will get you if you are coming into my country to make the same shit you are making in other countries all around the world. All women and men here will be firing on you if you come here to get us. Switzerland, like most other countries, is not like the US and a few other criminal countries like France or England that make war all around the world, transforming independent countries into rubbish, condemning their citizens to suffer worst life conditions than in the stone age.

?

I am glad none of those things happened the last time I was in Zurich. Maybe it was because I was not there to make shit?

I am glad none of those things happened the last time I was in Zurich. Maybe it was because I was not there to make shit?

Exactly. Peoples that comes in peace are always welcomed. But to be kind doesn't mean to be naive. We are leaving into a mad world, and the countries are not better than the ones that lives in and votes for who they votes. The only differences between countries is just that, in some countries, the morons are in power._________________[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

You're right. I keep trying to tell them that we are us, and the the real they are coming to get us, but they don't listen.

Come on! Why do you think I will go into the US to get you! No way, I am not like you!

But I will get you if you are coming into my country to make the same shit you are making in other countries all around the world. All women and men here will be firing on you if you come here to get us. Switzerland, like most other countries, is not like the US and a few other criminal countries like France or England that make war all around the world, transforming independent countries into rubbish, condemning their citizens to suffer worst life conditions than in the stone age.

Switzerland is just like the rest of Europe. Look at your asinine Swiss Guards in the Vatican. Look at the gold in your banks that used to be the teeth of Jews. Look at your mercenaries who took part in the invasion and subjugation of African peoples, and your later exploitation of Ghana, the Congo, and other African peoples (or maybe you thought they were growing the chocolate in the Alps). Look at the Catholic and Protestant missionaries you have sent to Africa and elsewhere. You've still got 40,000 people working in Africa, busily exploiting and stealing from the indigenous peoples. Look at your anti-Muslim referendums. You're a nation of greedy, cowardly bigots.

As to your neutrality, being at least somewhat ready, even in token form, to defend your homeland is good. Relying on others for your protection is not. Just ask Belgium. Had the U.S. and Britain not invaded Europe, the Nazis would have eventually got around to crushing Switzerland. Had we not stayed, so would the Soviets.

What a novel concept. Too bad we don't have anything like the Internet in the USA.

We could invent the World Wide Web for you, if you promise to get an education.

Since when do you consider the British as "we"? Since they sank your Armada, or since they agreed to make you an aircraft carrier that can do more than 17 knots without giving the engine crew a lethal dose of radiation, like that Spanish-built piece of shit you call your Nation's flagship?

well, I asked the embassy how I could get a human hunting licence for my trip to the states in July.

The answer was not pretty. Really. The only good thing: I will not spend a lot of money leaving my home country._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

Switzerland is just like the rest of Europe. Look at your asinine Swiss Guards in the Vatican. Look at the gold in your banks that used to be the teeth of Jews. Look at your mercenaries who took part in the invasion and subjugation of African peoples, and your later exploitation of Ghana, the Congo, and other African peoples (or maybe you thought they were growing the chocolate in the Alps). Look at the Catholic and Protestant missionaries you have sent to Africa and elsewhere. You've still got 40,000 people working in Africa, busily exploiting and stealing from the indigenous peoples. Look at your anti-Muslim referendums. You're a nation of greedy, cowardly bigots.

BoneKracker is a communist

BoneKracker wrote:

As to your neutrality, being at least somewhat ready, even in token form, to defend your homeland is good. Relying on others for your protection is not. Just ask Belgium. Had the U.S. and Britain not invaded Europe, the Nazis would have eventually got around to crushing Switzerland. Had we not stayed, so would the Soviets.

Switzerland is no better than anybody else.

Which swiss mercenaries in Africa ? The Swiss was very severely defeated in 1515 at Marignan by François 1er, and from that time, Switzerland stopped to make conquest wars and the only Swiss that took parts in conflict was mercenaries serving for other countries, mainly the France.

The US and Britain did not come in Europa to save us from the Nazis, but to stop the Russians (the Soviets was already crushed from a long time ago and by they own, by guys like Lenine and Trotsky that replaced the Soviets by what they called a war economy during the Russian civil war) which defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the real turn point of WWII in Europa.

I agree with you that, from an economical or religious point of view, Switzerland is not better than the other countries. But it is not Switzerland that killed the Jews and the communists yesterday, nor that kill the civilians of Palestine, Afghanistan or Syria today. It is not Switzerland that is making wars all around the world, but coutries like the USA, France and other._________________[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

no, Switzerland is just the receiver of all the stolen goods. The fence. The place all the bad guys use to park their spoils of war. In that regard it is even worse than everybody else.

WW2 is a nice example, btw. Why should have the Nazis invaded Switzerland? They needed it to sell synthetic rubber to the Americans._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

no, Switzerland is just the receiver of all the stolen goods. The fence. The place all the bad guys use to park their spoils of war. In that regard it is even worse than everybody else.

WW2 is a nice example, btw. Why should have the Nazis invaded Switzerland? They needed it to sell synthetic rubber to the Americans.

That's true for WWII. Switzerland was the bank for both sides of the conflict, and like in casino, nobody is playing against the bank.

But it was not Swiss peoples that funded Hitler from 1923, but peoples like Georges Walker-Bush (Bush father and grandfather if you prefer), Morgan and Ford in the US and like the Rotschild in Europa.

Also, Switzerland is not the only one country where it is a lot of money from all around the world today. Places like the City or Wall-Streets are much bigger than the Swiss banks. I am not defending them (the Swiss banks), the real problem is not the Swiss banks, or the City or Wall-Strett, the problem is the financial system as a whole.

You are from Germany, very well, under many years, German societies was selling weapons to Greece, an huge amount of weapons, and German banks was loaning money to Greece. France did it. The USA did it. As long Greece was the forth weapons buyer in the world, it was an example to follow for the financial system. We all know the end. Al fine, with the financial crisis, Greece was not able to pay back the interest of the loans and get in bankruptcy. Now, other banks are loaning more money to Greece, but this money will never reach the peoples in need of Greece, it is to pay back the first banks from Germany, France and the US.

That's the financial system as a whole that is a problem, not a country more than another one. The essence of the financial system is the dogma than an infinite grow is possible on a planet with finite resources. When the economy go well, the financial bubbles can only grow. What caused the crisis is not the explosion of some of those bubbles, but the fact that the oil prices was growing fast. That induced a vicious circle where the economic downturn caused by the rising oil prices made the financial bubbles to explode, which in turn made ​​the real economy to plunge.

And with time, as our lifestyle can and will only exhaust more and all natural resources, it is sure than the financial system as it is today will not be able to address the coming economical issues. At the contrary, with its dogma of infinite grow, it will only made the problems to increase. I am not communist either because they also have their dogmas. I am for a better future for my children, and the capitalism can only fail to archive that.

I am 54 years old, and things are only going worst on that planet, and that time, the capitalists can only blame them self for that failure. It is several decades than the USSR is gone, and the so called civilization war is a big forfeiture: they are all capitalists!

The only question is to know when and how, is to know if we will fail with the capitalism or if we will get enough resources to invent something else before it will be too late.

A last word. Earth is our only source of life, and during my 54 years of life, the destruction of the living on earth not only expanded, but its rate of destruction is expanding as well. And again, capitalists cannot blame someone else now, we are all capitalists even if we want to!

So, the so-called end of History will not be like Fukuyama describe it - the end of ideology, but the end of mankind, and the alternative is not like the communists are saying, communism or barbarity, but capitalism or life.

The key is our relationship with nature. For the capitalism, it is an exploitation. For the communism, it is a fight. For an human being that is aware that Earth is our only source of life, it can only be a relationship of respect._________________[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading that text: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

It's a matter of historical record that several slave states were extremely concerned about a guarantee for state militias not for any lofty principle but simply because the institution of slavery could not be maintained without them. They were afraid that a federal army could bring emancipation via the back door by refusing to support the slave patrols which kept everyone in their place, or simply by recruiting them into the army as free citizens.

Patrick Henry:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

The right to bear arms has never been used to defend against tyranny. It has been used to perpetuate a tyranny.

It's a matter of historical record that several slave states were extremely concerned about a guarantee for state militias not for any lofty principle but simply because the institution of slavery could not be maintained without them. They were afraid that a federal army could bring emancipation via the back door by refusing to support the slave patrols which kept everyone in their place, or simply by recruiting them into the army as free citizens.

Such a claim should easily be found. So lets see sources. As in plural, not a single whack job.

mcgruff wrote:

Patrick Henry:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

Mr. Henry still retained his opinion, that the states had no right to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, &c. But the right interpretation (and such as the nations of the earth had put upon the concession of power) was that, when power was given, it was given exclusively. He appealed to the committee, if power was not confined in the hands of a few in almost all countries of the world. He referred to their candor, if the construction of conceded power was not an exclusive concession, in nineteen twentieth parts of the world. The nations which retained their liberty were comparatively few. America would add to the number of the oppressed nations, if she depended on constructive rights and argumentative implication. That the powers given to Congress were exclusively given, was very obvious to him. The rights which the states had must be founded on the restrictions on Congress. He asked, if the doctrine which had been so often circulated, that rights not given were retained, was true, why there were negative clauses to restrain Congress. He told gentlemen that these clauses were sufficient to shake all their implication; for, says he, if Congress had no power but that given to them, why restrict them by negative words? Is not the clear implication this--that, if these restrictions were not inserted, they could have performed what they prohibit?

The worthy member had said that Congress ought to have power to protect all, and had given this system the highest encomium. But he insisted that the power over the militia was concurrent. To obviate the futility of this doctrine, Mr. Henry alleged that it was not reducible to practice. Examine it, says he; reduce it to practice. Suppose an insurrection in Virginia, and suppose there be danger apprehended of an insurrection in another state, from the exercise of the government; or suppose a national war; and there be discontents among the people of this state, that produce, or threaten, an insurrection; suppose Congress, in either case, demands a number of militia,--will they not be obliged to go? Where are your reserved rights, when your militia go to a neighboring state? Which call is to be obeyed, the congressional call, or the call of the state legislature? The call of Congress must be obeyed. I need not remind this committee that the sweeping clause will cause their demands to be submitted to. This clause enables them "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Mr. Chairman, I will turn to another clause, which relates to the same subject, and tends to show the fallacy of their argument.

The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.

There are three clauses which prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. The clause giving Congress power to call them out to suppress insurrections, &c.; that which restrains a state from engaging in war except when actually invaded; and that which requires Congress to protect the states against domestic violence,--render it impossible that a state can have power to intermeddle with them. Will not Congress find refuge for their actions in these clauses? With respect to the concurrent jurisdiction, it is a political monster of absurdity. We have passed that clause which gives Congress an unlimited authority over the national wealth; and here is an unbounded control over the national strength. Notwithstanding this clear, unequivocal relinquishment of the power of controlling the militia, you say the states retain it, for the very purposes given to Congress. Is it fair to say that you give the power of arming the militia, and at the same time to say you reserve it? This great national government ought not to be left in this condition. If it be, it will terminate in the destruction of our liberties.

This next paragraph is not only out of context, it's out of order, as it's from ten days before the first paragraph, and is not about slavery, slavery is merely the example used.

mcgruff wrote:

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

"With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among then thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves if they please. And this must and will be done my men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a national government was national defense. That power which is said to be intended for security and safety may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the to the general government to provide for the general defense, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is entrusted with the public defense. In this State, there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other States. But there are few or none in the northern States; and yet, if the northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but Acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects--we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defence [sic]--let all these things operate on their minds; they will search that paper, and see if they have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.

I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.

In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men in bondage. But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know that, in a variety of particular instances, the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add that this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress...

Read that again. He's saying "yes slavery is bad, but if we stop it now there will be consequences. Working out those problems should be a local issue, not a national issue." There is nothing in there about using the militia to suppress slave revolts

mcgruff wrote:

The right to bear arms has never been used to defend against tyranny. It has been used to perpetuate a tyranny.

You're right. It was of no help in Warsaw nor a few years later in Athens

If you can get two brain cells to work together, you might read this article from another liberal anti-gunner debunking Hartmann. From the article:

Quote:

If Hartmann's political goal is to argue for reasonable firearms regulations, then he and I are in the same camp. I have long argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms, and that the purpose of the amendment was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. I have also written a great deal on how the Constitution protected slavery (see my book Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson), and I am not shy about pointing out how the founders protected slavery. Indeed, my most recent public comment on slavery and the founding was an op-ed in the New York Times on Jefferson and slavery titled "The Monster of Monticello."

Still, however committed one may be to a political outcome, it serves no purpose to make historical arguments that are demonstrably wrong, misleading and inconsistent with what happened. Hartmann does not serve his cause well by purporting to write history when his version of history is mostly wrong, and very misleading.